Upgrading my Canon 400D

E5telle

E5telle

Messages
44
Edit My Images
No
Hi

Im upgrading and making the next step from my Canon 400D, to the 60D. Will the lens quality be better on the 60D than the standard 18-55 on 400D, or are it be not that different and more worthy of saving some money and buying body only? thanks
 
Which lens are you buying with the 60D? If it is the 18-55 IS, it is quite a good, given the low price. It should be sharper than your 18-55 non-IS, and IS is good for low light ( with no moving objects ). Others like the 18-135 IS will obviously provide you with more range, but the image quality may not be that great.

If you are buying the 60D, you may want better lens than the kit lens, though. If you don't have fund, you can continue to save up by buying body only. Alternatively, the 18-55 IS is also cheap enough for you to buy and use for a short while ( and then sell it on ebay with just little loss ).
 
What is the reason you are thinking of upgrading?

Are you finding that the 400D is holding you back? Not enough features? Not enough ISO?

Sometimes it is worth investing in a better lens before upgrading body. Quality glass is two thirds of the battle with image clarity.

If you are set on upgrading then why not get a new body only and then look at a preowned lens that could expand you range for less expense.

Just my 2p worth.
 
This reads very strangely to me!

It sounds as if you are buying a new body as the kit lens is better than the one you currently have?! Or have I misread the OPs opening post?

OP - why not just invest in a better lens, or lenses on your 400d as to be fair, if all you've used is the kit lens, you really havnt used the camera to it's full potential an if you do the same with the 60d you won't find much of an improvement, quality wise.
 
I agree with getting better lens first. But I'm curious why you suggested 40d or 50d.
 
A good friend recently upgraded his 450D to a 60D and doesn't regret it at all. He likes the swivel screen, but the main reason for his upgrade was the fps. He was finding the 3.5fps a bit restrictive for him.
 
The 60D will give you some fantastic extra features, if that's what you require:

* Better AF
* More robust feel
* Bigger viewfinder
* Nicer screen
* More fps
* Liveview
* Video
* Much better high ISO capability
* Extra resolution
* Extra jog dial
* Top LCD

But you WILL need to get some decent glass to go with it too! And probably some big SD cards!
 
Is the 60D really worth the extra expense though? Wouldn't it be better to get better lenses first?
 
E5telle said:
Hi

Im upgrading and making the next step from my Canon 400D, to the 60D. Will the lens quality be better on the 60D than the standard 18-55 on 400D, or are it be not that different and more worthy of saving some money and buying body only? thanks
Click to expand...

What do you photograph? In what way does your current camera prevent you achieving your aims.

It is highly unlikely that you are restricted by the box; more likely skill and lens.
 
I'v just gone from 450D to 7D and I'm loving it. Since all of the 18Mp cameras have (almost) the same sensor the ability to crop, the IQ, the higher ISO and other options all make it worth the upgrade, obviously you have to pair it with good glass but its well worth it.
 
Thanks to all who have replied. Reason for upgrade is to move up the stakes a little in my photography from entry level SLR to mid range.

Thanks for the points on improved glass and lenses. Will prop:)ably consider body only, until getting the extra cash for better IS lenses. Any further suggestions on which standard lenses to upgrade to? Thanks v much!
 
I was in the same boat as you but instead when o asked about the 70-200 f2.8 mk2. People in here or in a different forum said I should upgrade my 400d instead lol.

I kindly ignored them because lens has more of an impact for Images then a body . My next purchase will probably be a new body though. Like the 7d or 5dmk3.

In a nutshell build your lens collection first and then upgrade the body later. I have personally reached the limit of the 400d long ago. Not good enough iso and poor AF is what's kills me on the 400d.
 
I'd be surprised if you've reached the level where you could consider the body is restricting your photography skills when all you've used is the kit lens?

You'll see much bigger steps forward if you buy lenses first, especially fast primes. This will improve image quality ten fold and make you think more about getting the shot.

And why do you want better 'IS' lenses specifically?

Don't take this the wrong way, but it doesn't sound as if you really know why you NEED to upgrade the body.
 
Last edited:
Thanks all - I have a mix of lenses including a 50mm 1.8mm and ready for change. I hadnt previously considered upgrading to better lenses first and you have got me thinking that perhaps this would be an interim step. The 400D certainly is not restricting my photography, (and perhaps never will), but Ive used it since it was first launched and ready to upgrade (take the next step up) to a sturdier body, bigger screen, larger sensor, and then build on lens kit from there. My initial thought was about whether to go for a body only and use existing 400D kit lens or whether the 60D kit lens would be better. Thanks for all your advice and help with my thinking.
 
I think you are buying it for the sake of it, if im brutally honest.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Spend the money on glass.

If you really want a new camera, get a 30/40D, good build, feels nice, seems like a new toy to you but only costs half. spend the difference on a good lens/lenses.
 
saxk said:
I think you are buying it for the sake of it, if im brutally honest.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Spend the money on glass.

If you really want a new camera, get a 30/40D, good build, feels nice, seems like a new toy to you but only costs half. spend the difference on a good lens/lenses.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this and odd jim's comments - invest in better glass, it'll improve your pictures SO much, then when you require a new camera invest in the 60D or whatever else is worthwhile at the time. You'll notice much more improvement by buying a lens like the 17-50 2.8, as mentioned above, than getting a 60D with kit lens....
 
Will James said:
Completely agree with this and odd jim's comments - invest in better glass, it'll improve your pictures SO much, then when you require a new camera invest in the 60D or whatever else is worthwhile at the time. You'll notice much more improvement by buying a lens like the 17-50 2.8, as mentioned above, than getting a 60D with kit lens....
Click to expand...

Yup, i went from a 400d with 17-50 tam ƒ 2.8 to a 30D, i only bought the body as i am a geek and love to buy new electrical stuff. I was happy as i got the 30D for £200, this was three years ago.

But if im honest, i didnt need it. i just WANTED it, big difference
 
Ok

i mean need to upgrade, or want to for the sake of a new toy.

course most of us don't need a camera, we have it for pleasure. That was not what i was getting at.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Most here don't need a dslr unless it pays the bills. If it's just for pure hobbiest we don't need it
Click to expand...

This is a completely bizarre comment!
 
I am a 400D owner also, and have no intentions of getting rid of the body yet, I am building a lens collection first, it does make a huge difference. The iso at 1600 is terrible with this body, but right now I am sticking with it.
 
paulpdh said:
I am a 400D owner also, and have no intentions of getting rid of the body yet, I am building a lens collection first, it does make a huge difference. The iso at 1600 is terrible with this body, but right now I am sticking with it.
Click to expand...

:agree:

Until I really need improved iso I satisfy my 'need' for new with better glass of which I have plenty, well beyond my skill level :lol:
 
I NEED a dslr to carry out, and enjoy my hobby.

Without it I wouldnt bother with photography.

Its bizarre to put this comment on a photography forum IMO! And you'll notice I'm not alone in thinking your comment was slightly weird...
 
Last edited:
I have a 450d with kit lens, i decided my upgrade path should be better lenses first (either tamron 17-50 2.8, or the canon 17-55 2.8) and then after i have better glass go up to a 7d

it makes most sence to me that way anyway!
 
odd jim said:
I NEED a dslr to carry out, and enjoy my hobby.

Without it I wouldnt bother with photography.

Its bizarre to put this comment on a photography forum IMO! And you'll notice I'm not alone in thinking your comment was slightly weird...
Click to expand...

NEED is a very subjective word. they way i class NEED is something that you cannot SURVIVE/LIVE without. MANY including YOU can still live life to its fullest without photgraphy while others CANT because it pays the bills.

Im only commenting on the person saying whether they really NEED/want a 60d i believe it was when teh fact of the matter is that MOST do not even NEED a DSLR of any kind at all.

IMO :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top